Support NeoGAF

[LizardKing]

But we're not talking about dams. We're talking about turbines. And yes, nuclear power is cool, but if more people get onto solar/turbine, more power to them. It's an order of magnitude better than coal/gas.

I addressed turbines. And I also stated they are better than coal.

I'm just responding to your point about it being an inefficient use of land. Not sure what coal has to do with it. This is why we have environmental impact studies.

To say we have plenty of land we can afford to build wind farms is equivalent in logic (not severity) to saying we have plenty of atmosphere we can afford to build coal plants. Eventually you don't have plenty of whatever. At least not that isn't impacted by some type of pollution or habitat destruction. And yes they do studies. What is your point? It's better than coal. Sure. But this myth that these types of energies are harmless should die. They aren't an answer. They are a stepping stone. Nuclear fusion will be the true energy revolution.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

So, let's just be clear. Solar is expected to grow 12 GW this year, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt and say that over the next ten years we expect it to grow an average of 20 GWs. This is capacity not actual production, but let's say it's production just to give a bone. A single nuclear power plant will take about ten years to make. A single nuclear power plant produces 11 TWHs of energy, not capacity per year. So... in ten years of growth better than this years we'll have replaced... 200 GWs. Not to mention that several nuclear power plants can be built in tandem.

This is not good news. This is using a bucket the size of a thimble to bail a boat filling with water.

Or, as more states prove the cost benefit of solar, a tipping point could be reached. We still have problems with storage and the financial implications of excess energy production. Once you incentivize consumers to generate the energy, you may see a boom that doesn't compare to the current growth rate.

Some states, like Florida, are still backwards on solar. But the great states, like Cali, have to lead the way and show others that it's worthwhile.

 

[Steel]

At absolute least the effort to get people to be more energy efficient/use more energy efficient tech has been going well. Last year we used 200 terrawatt hours less than the year before.

Or, as more states prove the cost benefit of solar, a tipping point could be reached. We still have problems with storage and the financial implications of excess energy production. Once you incentivize consumers to generate the energy, you may see a boom that doesn't compare to the current growth rate.

Some states, like Florida, are still backwards on solar. But the great states, like Cali, have to lead the way and show others that it's worthwhile.

I mean, sure, maybe it'll get to the point where it'll actually start making a dent in energy production, we're nowhere near that point though. In the meantime we're better served investing in nuclear while solar cooks in the oven, so to speak. We can definitely do both.

Granted, part of the problem is you have to convince local governments to invest more money into energy generation when... They already have power plants that produce all the energy they currently need. People are even using less energy year over year, so basically it's telling them to put money toward solar for... Nothing they didn't already have other than being cleaner. Nuclear is a lot easier to sell as you're looking forward a decade, at least from an energy generation perspective.

 

[TAJ]

So, let's just be clear. Solar is expected to grow 12 GW this year, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt and say that over the next ten years we expect it to grow an average of 20 GWs. This is capacity not actual production, but let's say it's production just to give a bone. A single nuclear power plant will take about ten years to make. A single nuclear power plant produces 11 TWHs of energy, not capacity per year. So... in ten years of growth better than this years we'll have replaced... 200 GWs. Not to mention that several nuclear power plants can be built in tandem.

This is not good news. This is using a bucket the size of a thimble to bail a boat filling with water.

Why are you comparing how much nuclear generates in a year to how much solar generates at any given moment?
Nuclear plants range from 0.5 to 8 gigawatts if you want to do a real comparison.

 

[zeemumu]

Well, the U.S. uses 4000 TW per year. So, not that much. Not to mention this is capacity, not actual generation. It's almost like people just want to take any number they see as a good thing without looking at the bigger picture.

This is heavy.

 

[PdotMichael]

Well, the U.S. uses 4000 TW per year. So, not that much. Not to mention this is capacity, not actual generation. It's almost like people just want to take any number they see as a good thing without looking at the bigger picture.

Looking how solar energy was not existent in the USA not even 10 years ago and the high import tarifs on cheap Chinese solar modules. The developement and dynamic of the market for PV is impressive.

 

[Steel]

Why are you comparing how much nuclear generates in a year to how much solar generates at any given moment?
Nuclear plants range from 0.5 to 8 gigawatts if you want to do a real comparison.

You're right, that was a wrong way to look at it, that being said with solar panels 2 gigawatts of capacity is nowhere near production(any given moment is 0-2 gigawatts, and it's rarely 2). The 40 gigawatts of capacity we had last year produced 38 TWH of electricity, so 20 gigawatts a year would be about 19 TWH a year, 190 over ten years which is equivalent to 18 nuclear power plants.

Which would make solar 228 TWH or about 16% of current usage in a decade, current nuclear output is about 20%, if we were to invest in new plants over the next 10 years instead of just a single plant that could easily be increased and we'd be majority non-carbon energy-wise(given that we don't increase how much we use, of course).

Looking at it that way, this is good news, but it still doesn't solve the problem by itself in a decade even with a generous 20 gigawatt average per year when we're projected to have barely more than half that this year. Keep in mind, that projections put solar at 10% of total energy usage in 10 years, not 16.

Looking how solar energy was not existent in the USA not even 10 years ago and the high import tarifs on cheap Chinese solar modules. The developement and dynamic of the market for PV is impressive.

I'm not saying to stop it, just do more than one thing at a time.

 

[jellies_two]

I'm not really seeing costs coming down for residential installs. :/

Edits:
Says it in the report. The largest market, California, is expecting a year-over-year decline in the coming decade. The costs aren't coming down. A decent install still costs $15-25K.

It will come down in ca because it's already much lower in Australia which had a bunch of companies with what are basically direct supply chains to china. I have no idea how it got this competitive here, after all it costs an absolute fortune to get a house built vs USA, but it is.

 

[Sir Abacus]

I put in 12kW DC/10kW AC and it went live in February.

Best decision I ever made.

 

[Vengal]

Large buffers and inverters

Those would be handled by large power plants right, so the ones on peoples houses just generate extra power relying on other sources to balance the grid itself. My parents neighborhood had solar city rush it and now basically every home has solar panels on it. I wondered how it was all being handled. Like does Solar City have their own buffers and inverters or are they selling extra power to the major power plants in the region and those coal plants are the ones handling the balance work. I don't believe the DMV area has any solar or wind power farms.

 

[Suikoguy]

Those would be handled by large power plants right, so the ones on peoples houses just generate extra power relying on other sources to balance the grid itself. My parents neighborhood had solar city rush it and now basically every home has solar panels on it. I wondered how it was all being handled. Like does Solar City have their own buffers and inverters or are they selling extra power to the major power plants in the region and those coal plants are the ones handling the balance work. I don't believe the DMV area has any solar or wind power farms.

I'm not sure how they do it in that specific example, but worldwide it's a combination of many of the options outlined in the Wikipedia article on energy storage.

 

[PdotMichael]

You're right, that was a wrong way to look at it, that being said with solar panels 2 gigawatts of capacity is nowhere near production(any given moment is 0-2 gigawatts, and it's rarely 2). The 40 gigawatts of capacity we had last year produced 38 TWH of electricity, so 20 gigawatts a year would be about 19 TWH a year, 190 over ten years which is equivalent to 10 nuclear power plants.

Which would make solar 228 TWH or about 16% of current usage in a decade, current nuclear output is about 20%, if we were to invest in new plants over the next 10 years instead of just a single plant that could easily be increased and we'd be majority non-carbon energy-wise(given that we don't increase how much we use, of course).

Looking at it that way, this is good news, but it still doesn't solve the problem by itself in a decade even with a generous 20 gigawatt average per year when we're projected to have barely more than half that this year.



I'm not saying to stop it, just do more than one thing at a time.

Nuclear energy in the USA is pretty much at a dead end because of the economic challenges of building and running such power plants.
Meanwhile wind and solar energy alone are capable of easily covering the American energy needs.

 

[Steel]

Nuclear energy in the USA is pretty much at a dead end because of the economic challenges of building and running such power plants.
Meanwhile wind and solar energy alone are capable of easily covering the American energy needs.

You say economic challenges, but each individual plant only costs about 2-9 billion to make. A coal plant that produces a fraction of the amount of energy costs 2 billion. It's not as expensive as people make it out to be. It's at a dead end because of NIMBYism and political cowardice. And no, in ten years they will not be covering america's energy needs by themselves.

 

[PdotMichael]

You say economic challenges, but each individual plant only costs about 2-9 billion. A coal plant that produces a fraction of the amount of energy costs 2 billion. It's not as expensive as people make it out to be. It's at a dead end because of NIMBYism and political cowardice. And no, in ten years they will not be covering america's energy needs by themselves.

Lol, the Levy Country Nuclear Power Plant went from 5 Billion to 22 Billion + financing charges and cost overruns for example. Nuclear Power Plants projects are prime examples of optimism bias for a reason.

Even ignoring that nuclear energy isn't even cheap compared to renewable energy.

 

[Makai]

Or, as more states prove the cost benefit of solar, a tipping point could be reached. We still have problems with storage and the financial implications of excess energy production. Once you incentivize consumers to generate the energy, you may see a boom that doesn't compare to the current growth rate.

Some states, like Florida, are still backwards on solar. But the great states, like Cali, have to lead the way and show others that it's worthwhile.

Or waste a bunch of money, like with Arnold's hydrogen program. I agree with you, but there's no reason for the government to get involved since the price of solar is falling so quickly - aside from legalizing personal generation of course, maybe that's what you meant.

 

[Izayoi]

Nuclear is the future. Fission is not ideal obviously, but fusion is the ultimate clean energy. Tiny footprint and huge, clean output.

If we could get over our fears surrounding fission we'd be much better off, but alas.

 

[Angry Grimace]

All this and the GOP will continue to scream about coal....

The actual coal industry is pretty tiny.

 

[TakeItSlowDude]

Lol, the Levy Country Nuclear Power Plant went from 5 Billion to 22 Billion + financing charges and cost overruns for example. Nuclear Power Plants projects are prime examples of optimism bias for a reason.

Even ignoring that nuclear energy isn't even cheap compared to renewable energy.

Plenty of counter examples in South Asia, South Korea complete Shin-Wolsong 1&2 at a cost of < 5 Billion. When you factor in the subsidies per kWh and price out storage for solar the cost of nuclear is cheap compared to solar. The issues with Levy have a lot to do with the AP1000 program which has been poorly managed by Toshiba/Westinghouse.

 

[gcubed]

I'm not really seeing costs coming down for residential installs. :/

Edits:
Says it in the report. The largest market, California, is expecting a year-over-year decline in the coming decade. The costs aren't coming down. A decent install still costs $15-25K.

Prices aren't coming down but the technology is getting better, so you get more output per dollar but the cost is the same

 

[jchap]

Those would be handled by large power plants right, so the ones on peoples houses just generate extra power relying on other sources to balance the grid itself. My parents neighborhood had solar city rush it and now basically every home has solar panels on it. I wondered how it was all being handled. Like does Solar City have their own buffers and inverters or are they selling extra power to the major power plants in the region and those coal plants are the ones handling the balance work. I don't believe the DMV area has any solar or wind power farms.

It's the same principle in residential solar systems also hooked to utility. There is some buffer batteries or capacitance and depending on their charge a controller operates the inverter which is connected to the utility line. If you generate more power through the inverter than is being consumed your power meter runs in reverse. If in a pay period your meter runs in reverse you get paid by the utility.
The connection is to the utility line so the grounding is all identical. Each installation has its own inverter.